Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 Next
Comments 61801 to 61850:
-
Martin Lack at 23:22 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Can all readers, even if you don't look at any of my other posts on my blog, please read this one: Lindzengate - an update report (8 March 2012). It could change the course of human history (or at least your response to it could)! -
Norman at 23:06 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Glenn Tamblyn @26 I did read your post @16. The point I was making was not to show an upward trend in earthquakes. It was just to show that there were more in the 2000 decade than the 1990 decade. It seems odd that allow in reality there were more large earthquakes in the 2000 decade the Munich Re graph shows a decline in the number of geophysical catastrophes. The point I am making is this Munich Re graph is not a useful tool in determining if events are increasing. We know large earthquakes have increased but have not resulted in more catastrophes. More large earthquakes in 2000's actually led to fewer natural catastrophes counted as compared to the 1990's. I think the evidence I presented will show the Munich Re graph is good for one thing and that is for insurers to determine rates. It is not a good tool to determine if storms or floods are on the increase as it is not designed to make that determination. Only an actual event count can be a valid tool to make such a determination, not a disaster or catastrophic count (dependent on people and property which is a sliding variable on many scales...people move around, want better things and the overall population increases over time). You know the severe tornado (F3 to F5 scale)number has been trending down over the years in the US, yet the Munich Re graph shows a trend upward from storm related catastrophes. So the actual number of severe tornadoes is down but the catastrophe count is up. I keep seeing this Munich Re graph used on Skeptical Science to demonstrate Climate Change but I still believe it is a poor tool to use. Other sources should be investigated that have an actual event count. -
OPatrick at 22:54 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Dick, that version of the graph was used by 'sceptics' (e.g. in the Daily Mail here) -
funglestrumpet at 21:11 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
dana1981 @ 47 I do keep old copies and I can assure you that Monckton Misrepresentations part 3 does not appear as a primary reference on any of the emails that I have received. It does appear as a link in Part 1 with the words "(as we will see here in Part 3)". It now does cover the topic, but obviously did not at the time because it was a future event.) I can find no primary notice of Part 3 (or part 2 other than another link in Part 1, for that matter) in the daily emails. I will freely admit to not being the brightest light on the Christmas tree, so it might be that I am missing something blindingly obvious. However, if we are supposed to hunt for links in other posts, I humbly suggest that it would be better for future multi-part posts to have each part treated as a primary post and notified as such in the daily email, if only so that thickos like me and 99% of WUWT can follow. On a completely separate topic, can we notify all and sundry that James Hanson has just given a really good talk on climate change to TED2012 (TED.com/talks)? He not only talks from the heart, but as we on this side of the fence are fully aware, he actually knows what he is talking about. Perhaps a better description would be that he is the exact opposite of Monckton. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:35 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
So Hanrahan knows we'll all be rooned.... ...Unless we chew a piece of bark The cadences of old bush language is just about gone, sadly. The Suburban working class language of 3 cars and a big McMansion on a tiny block of land is no substitute. And when you mix the bush language with Australias re-invention of Cockney Rhyming Slang there was something magical. Redheads were called Bluey, people with straight hair called Curly, and the millions of terms for someone not to bright - 'he's a couple of sheep short in the top paddock' made for an amazingly rich language. Now we all speak 'motivated speak', or 'management speak', or 'ernest & concerned speak' or 'gung-ho tradie speak' or 'Focused and Committed Sportsman speak' or 'Rap speak' or 'EMO speak' or something. All so bland.... -
RonManley at 19:25 PM on 8 March 2012Roy Spencer's Junk Science
Dave123 I tried splitting the data in two. The parameters were very similar for both periods. As I've said I don't make claims for this 'model' as a model. Think of it more as an educational toy. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:19 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman. The Munich Re data is about number of events defined as catastrophic. If a 6+ event occcurs and a 5+ event occurs, they may both be catastrophic. This measure produced by Munich Re doesn't differentiate once an event is above the threshold for catastrophic. They are counting events not severity. So any event - geophysical or other - will have different impacts depending on where it occurs. But what we are looking for is a signal showing how common an event is and how this may be changing over time. Increasing storms in the Bay of Bengal may have huge impacts on people. Increasing storms in Hudson Bay would have a much lower impact on people. But it would still be an indicator of changing climate patterns. Also, if you read my comment at 16, I personally wouldn't place that much credence in supposed trends on scales of decades. It is easy to imagine how one geophysical event could be linked to subsequent events physically. If I was looking for trends I would look at Century timescales at a minimum. Just as Climate has an inertia that imposes decadal timescales, geophysical has an inertia that imposes century and higher timescales -
Martin Lack at 19:08 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
It seems to be often repeated that we are merely complaining about one or two graphs in Lindzen's talk and/or that this does not matter because they did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal. What kind of myopic tunnel vision is this? Just about every single slide (certainly every single graph) was either incompetently-drafted or intentionally-misleading. (There is also the case of the missing slide @28:30 in the video). There are no other options. As James Hansen has said, in Storms of my Grandchildren, Lindzen appears to behave like a lawyer presenting only information and argument favourable to his client, appears not to be seeking the truth – only a win for his client, and, as such, policy inaction appears to be the aim of those (like him) that dispute global warming. What other explanation is there? If my complaint does not work, does not all of the above appear to be good grounds for a complaint by someone connected with MIT? Please feel free to adapt my wording above (#45). Will someone other than me please locate some moral courage and take action? -
Rob Painting at 18:51 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Dick - the weird end point is due to data only from Antarctica temperature stations being incorporated into the BEST temperature series at that time. Why they didn't wait for further data to come in before release is unknown. I agree - it creates confusion. Dana's very busy at the moment, but maybe he'll update the animation in the coming months. -
Dick Veldkamp at 18:11 PM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
@5 Chriskoz Thank you for your explanation. However I do not see any mention of the weird end point in the link you give; only the general mechanism is given (which is of course perfectly obvious to anybody unbiased). It may be good to explain the weird end point explicitly, because a small thing like that is used by the denialists to cast doubt on the whole graph. PS If I overlooked something, apologies. -
Doug Hutcheson at 18:08 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Yes, O'Brien is one of my favourite bush poets. You do realise, don't you, that he is taking the Mickey out of the persistent denier who ignores the evidence? Very apt, actually. -
DLB at 18:02 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Being on the other side of the AGW debate I can't resist this Australian bush poem by John O'Brien. "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, In accents most forlorn, Outside the church, ere Mass began, One frosty Sunday morn. The congregation stood about, Coat-collars to the ears, And talked of stock, and crops, and drought, As it had done for years. "It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke; "Bedad, it's cruke, me lad, For never since the banks went broke Has seasons been so bad." "It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil, With which astute remark He squatted down upon his heel And chewed a piece of bark. And so around the chorus ran "It's keepin' dry, no doubt." "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out." "The crops are done; ye'll have your work To save one bag of grain; From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke They're singin' out for rain. "They're singin' out for rain," he said, "And all the tanks are dry." The congregation scratched its head, And gazed around the sky. "There won't be grass, in any case, Enough to feed an ass; There's not a blade on Casey's place As I came down to Mass." "If rain don't come this month," said Dan, And cleared his throat to speak - "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If rain don't come this week." A heavy silence seemed to steal On all at this remark; And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed a piece of bark. "We want an inch of rain, we do," O'Neil observed at last; But Croke "maintained" we wanted two To put the danger past. "If we don't get three inches, man, Or four to break this drought, We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out." In God's good time down came the rain; And all the afternoon On iron roof and window-pane It drummed a homely tune. And through the night it pattered still, And lightsome, gladsome elves On dripping spout and window-sill Kept talking to themselves. It pelted, pelted all day long, A-singing at its work, Till every heart took up the song Way out to Back-o'-Bourke. And every creek a banker ran, And dams filled overtop; "We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If this rain doesn't stop." And stop it did, in God's good time; And spring came in to fold A mantle o'er the hills sublime Of green and pink and gold. And days went by on dancing feet, With harvest-hopes immense, And laughing eyes beheld the wheat Nid-nodding o'er the fence. And, oh, the smiles on every face, As happy lad and lass Through grass knee-deep on Casey's place Went riding down to Mass. While round the church in clothes genteel Discoursed the men of mark, And each man squatted on his heel, And chewed his piece of bark. "There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man, There will, without a doubt; We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out." -
Andy Skuce at 17:32 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
There was a recent (2010) group of papers published by the Royal Society that linked climate change and non-atmospheric disasters. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2311.full.pdf -
cornish_oceanographer at 16:58 PM on 8 March 2012Newcomers, Start Here
Furthermore (and I apologise for having no references to back this up) but in my opinion some of the skeptic community are likely financially backed by various think-tanks or pro-industry groups. It's likely in these cases that private backing is not transparent or open to the public whereas research scientists pay grades in the university and research council sector are openly public. -
cornish_oceanographer at 16:54 PM on 8 March 2012Newcomers, Start Here
184 - PRussell With regards to money while I accept that there are some good scientists who have made serious money by publishing books the reality is the majority of us in natural/earth/climate sciences earn relatively far less than in commerical technical applied science. In the UK for example, I studied oceanography because I love science and I love the oceans. In this process I ended up with student loan debt. However I followed my passions and maintained in research science. Post-doctorial 3 year research contacts in universities and institutes is frequently in the £20 to £30k bracket, yet if one choses to turn to private companies (e.g. geologists to the Oil and Gas sector, oceanographers to offshore construction, medical researchers to pharmeceutical companies) they will be earning vastly larger sums. As research academimcs, higher earning begins via climbing the university ladder as lecturers or heads of department which does pay more - but often the reality then is that these people get little time to research as they have managerial and or teaching responsibilities. -
Norman at 16:13 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Glenn Tablyn What I find most odd about your Munich Re graphs is that the actual number of 6+ magnitude earthquakes have been steadily increasing in numbers but there is not reflection of this on the Munich Re natural catastrophe chart you posted. USGS link. If you add up the earthquake number by decade given in the graphs of the above link. 1980-1989 average is 109.5 (6+ magnitude quakes/year) 1990-1999 average is 149.2 (6+ magnitude quakes/year) 2000-2009 average is 161.3 (6+ magnitude quakes/year) There is a 32% increase in the number of 6+ earthquakes in the 2000's decade over the 1980's decade but the Munich Re graph does not show this nor does it indicate the vastly increased number of deaths due to earthquakes over that period. Something is not right here. -
GreenCooling at 16:05 PM on 8 March 2012Wall Street Journal 'Skeptics' Misrepresent the IPCC
Actually thoughtful @87 Without wanting to endorse any particular company the Bitzer Refrigerant Report is a very useful source of detailed information on refrigerant properties. Natural refrigerants include the "friendly five" of Ammonia, Carbon Dioxide, Hydrocarbons, Air and Water, but NH3 or HCs (R290 or R600a or a blend) would be most useful in Ground Source Heat Pumps, although some kind of heat exchange or secondary loop might be required if leakage into occupied spaces is a possibility. The folks at ammonia21.com and hydrocarbons21.com have a lot of good information available, and I've seen HC GSHPs in use at supermarkets in Sweden, so it can be done. There are some amazing new developments in ammonia chillers using waste heat or solar, have a look at what Firechill is doing for instance. If you'd like to get in touch directly i'd be more than happy to put you in touch with some real experts - brent at greencooling dot org -
Norman at 15:48 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
KR @14 It is not so easy to find data of actual events independent of people to see if the trend is increasing as stated in the OP. Here is one attempt to show actual event numbers for global flooding. It only covers 1998 to 2008 but it has a graph of total events that have taken place within this document. On page 419 of this linked document they show a graph of global flood events. This is the only valid type of data to access if conditions are truly getting worse as the globe warms. Disaster amounts are biased with humans involved (life and property). I have stated before since population and property are variables in the equation they can distort the actual picture. Also about the earthquake data. It is rather misleading approach to the actual severity of earthquake data. You look at the Munich Re chart and things don't look so bad. Going just by the numbers of events that are listed as natual catastrophes. It does not paint the correct picture at all in terms of human misery. Here is the USGS Earthquake link. If you look at the decade graphs: From 1980-1989 estimated deaths were 58880 From 1990-1999 estimated deaths were 114646 From 2000-2009 estimated deaths were 471015 From 2010-2012 estimated deaths were 341642 On the Munich Re chart the number of natural catastrophes from geophysical events was down. Looks good on paper but does in no way indicate actual impact on people. -
muoncounter at 14:19 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
scaddenp: Published papers? That research was published in the well-known and authoritative voice of science, the Wall Street Journal. What is stunning is this line is also embraced by those who say climate change isn't real. That it's simultaneously not happening and causing earthquake or volcano clusters is a bit of a paradox, but what of that? -
scaddenp at 13:05 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
So is there any published papers (as opposed to magazines/book articles) to support this? The big earthquakes in recent times have taken place pretty much where they always have, and the really big ones on oceanic crustal boundaries. I dont buy it. -
Riduna at 12:22 PM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Writing in New Scientist, Richard Fisher argues that crustal sensitivity to mass redistribution is greater than generally supposed. In his recent book Waking the Giant, Bill McGuire comes to a similar conclusion. A couple of short articles in New Scientist worth a read are at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327273.800-climate-change-may-trigger-earthquakes-and-volcanoes.html?full=true and http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328522.500-climate-change-may-stir-geological-mayhem.html -
Glenn Tamblyn at 10:36 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
LukeW I doubt that better monitoring is the likely cause, not over this time scale. Rather an event triggers insurance claims and this data is extremely well recorded - it is essentially the actuarial basis that insurance is based on. Although their are predictions regarding specific events like Hurricanes, the Munich Re data covers a much larger range of weather/climate impacts - drought, forest fires, flooding and land-slides etc. That is why it is a useful metric. Prediction of the changes in rate of individual types of events is one thing.But this is giving the aggregate over all classes of events. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 10:30 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
The geophysical data can easily include clusters of events, particularly earthquakes, that are related and this can look like an increase when we look at timescales of a few decades. If a major fault line is under stress, a quake at one point on the fault can relieve the stress at that location but then result in a section further along the fault being under higher stress and resulting in a later quake. So a fault line can conceivably 'unzip' progressively releasing stresses over years or decades. Then it might be stable for centuries while the stresses build up again. Possibly the best recent example of this is the Boxing Day Earthquake & Tsunami in Indonesia. Since then there have been several more significant quakes further along the fault line running through Indonesia. Another region that has seismologists worried is Norther Turkey. Over decades there have been some major quakes, each occurring along the same major fault, each a bit further west. And this fault-line is pointed like an arrow at Istanbul. So related geophysical events can easily create a 'bulge' in events over decades that then subsides away again. And this data, at several decades, is still relatively short. In this context, the time scales needed to discern any trends are probly much longer than the scales needed for Climate - centuries & millenia rather than decades. So personally I don't read anything into Munich Re's trend for geophysical. Global warming might have a very small impact on geological events due to changes in mass distribution. But this is likely to be very slow. Several things could cause a possible impact. As major ice sheets melt, the crust beneath them that has been supporting that weight starts to rise slowly - this is called Isotatic Rebound. But it is very, very slow. Scandinavia for example is still slowly rising, recovering from the weight of the Ice Sheets that melted 1000's of years ago. As this rebound occurs it could slowly change the stresses associated with fault-lines, possible triggering tremors or quakes. But a lot would depend on how close to fault lines the uplift zones are. And localised melt of glaciers that happen to be near faults might have an impact. Secondly, melt of large amounts of ice, particularly Greenland & Antarctica redistributes that water into the world oceans. This adds extra total weight to the oceans, although trivially small compared to the total ocean mass. However another effect is that the extra mass of that ice sitting there creates localised regions of slightly higher gravitational fields, in turn slightly attracting more sea water to that area. So sea levels near large masses - land and ice - will on average tend to be a bit higher than far from those masses. So if ice melt of the large ice sheets is removing ice from those regions and spreading it out around the worlds oceans as water, the slight decline in the local field then tends to lower the local bulges in the ocean in those regions as well, increasing the local rebound effect. Both these effects however happen very slowly. So there well could be geophysical events caused by this but the rate of change is very slow. This doesn't mean that a cluster of geophysical events couldn't happen because of AGW, but the clustering is going to be due to geological links between the events rather than any change in the underlying rate of stress accumulation due AGW. A process that could trigger geophysical events, particularly at a local scale is changes in local water storage. This is both depletion of ground aquifers, and construction of surface dams - concerns have been expressed for example about the impact of the 3 Gorges Dam in China and furure planned ones. These type of changes may not involve the masses of ice sheets but could be locally significant. And this process could happen on time scales of decades. However, this isn't caused by AGW. Anthropgenic yes - we are using the water. But not Climate Change related yet. If climate changes increase temperatures enough this could alter precipitation levels that influence water table accumulation. But this would probably be a process over centuries - all but the most shallow aquifers tend to need this long to recharge. -
LukeW at 10:26 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
However - how much of their "trends" are due to better data and better reporting. In fact looking close to John's home, the Queensland coast, tropical cyclones making landfall have markedly declined since the 1970s and we know the trends have high decadal/multi-decadal variability as well as variation with ENSO. www.cawcr.gov.au/.../fd/.../Power_SPCZ_wshop_Apia_2010.pdf www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/sbp/.../Callaghan_and_Power_CD_2010.pdf "The extent to which global warming might be also be partially responsible for the decline in land-falls—if it is at all—is unknown." they say And is not the general AGW modelled future for tropical cyclones/hurricanes/typhoons for fewer or the same number events but an increase in intensity? -
KR at 09:54 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Norman - I would agree that these are "observed catastrophes" affecting people and property, and I would likewise agree with CBDunkerson that they are event counts, not costs. All such events will scale with observational coverage (population growth, property expansions) - and as Glenn Tamblyn has pointed out, the differences in trends between geophysical events (which should be unaffected by the climate) and others shows a clear climate influence. I think CBDunkerson could have stated it better by noting that population and property expansion should have no impact on the difference in trends. -
rustneversleeps at 09:28 AM on 8 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
Kent overlooked calls for 'transparency' on climate science research: memos Environment Minister Peter Kent overlooked calls from his department in 2011 to show more "transparency" and he delayed the release of a scientific paper on Canada's climate change challenges — prepared several months before the May 2 federal election — until late July, newly released internal memorandums reveal. The memos referred to an analysis of Canadian trends in greenhouse gas emissions that projected a sharp rise in emissions from the energy-intensive oilsands industry.... "Public release of this detailed paper (and associated tables) would permit the government to proactively frame Canada's current progress and challenges in managing greenhouse (GHG) emissions, while maintaining the commitment to transparency and informed public dialogue consistent with Environment Canada's status as a world class regulator," wrote the department's deputy minister, Paul Boothe, in a May 30, 2011, memo to Kent, released through access to information legislation.... . . . But instead of signing off on Boothe's request that the research be released in response to another access to information request that was due on June 10, Kent waited until he received a second memorandum requesting that the material be released in late July. A spokesman for Kent said the minister was too busy in early June to respond to the department's request, but followed up on it in the summer after getting a reminder from Boothe.. . . ... The date of the first memo coincided with intensive international media coverage about Environment Canada's decision to exclude data showing a substantial rise in pollution from the oilsands in a mandatory inventory report on emissions to the United Nations. The missing data revealed that the oilsands industry's annual emissions were greater than annual pollution from all cars on Canadian roads and almost as much pollution in a year as all light-duty trucks in the country.. . . ... Environment Canada recently has declined to release a separate discussion paper that estimates emissions per barrel from the oilsands sector, arguing that it contains information that may harm Canada's national security and foreign relations. The department also said, in response to an access to information request, that this discussion paper includes privileged advice to the government on a matter under consultation. . . . ... Kent has recently indicated he will introduce a plan to regulate emissions from the oilsands in the coming months. But questions about whether the industry is actually reducing its emissions per barrel have become controversial in recent months, with industry stakeholders suggesting they are making progress, while the most recent government statistics show that oilsands companies are no longer collectively achieving reductions... -
chriskoz at 09:21 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Dick @4, There is no bug. The "skeptical" (==ignorant or willfuly misleading) version draws from incomplete 2011 data and goes out of whack. The realist version draws from complete data. It is explained in this thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-2.html -
Albatross at 09:11 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Hi Dana, It was in the 26 February 2012 email, together with articles by Chris Colose and John Cook. -
mandas at 09:10 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Hi Glen, I too am Australian and this poem has always been a favourite of mine. I also used to live in Wagga Wagga, and I watched as the area surrounding my house went under water. Just a small point though, and as much as I hate to be a pedant, could you please change 'loose' in the second paragraph to 'lose'. Cheers -
Norman at 09:09 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
CBDunkerson @7 I have to disagree with your post about the meaning of the Munich Re graphs. They are of Natural Catastrophe's not actual events. An F5 tornado in a field that causes no damage is a natural event and potential catastrophe but will not be logged as one unless it causes some damage or kills someone. If you do not believe me here is something from Re itself. On this Google link (I can't link directly to the document) Google link. Click on the NatCatSAV1 link 4 down and you can read what a catastrophe is yourself and it definately involves people and property. -
Dick Veldkamp at 09:01 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Sorry, this is somewhat off topic, so you can delete this after reading. Your excellent Escalator graph seems to have a small bug: in the 'Skeptical' version the temperature drops completely at the right end of the graph (but without a point??). I know we have had some 'flattening' over the last decade, but we didn't drop to the 1973 value, did we? Also in the 'Realist' version I don't see the drop. P.S. Of course if the value really occurred, we should include it! -
owl905 at 08:56 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Lintzen making an accusation of deliberate falsification by NASA is repugnant. Tony T. Watt holds court with this kind of smear tactic. Lintzen has drifted so far from his academic roots, it's MIT that needs to splain things to him. Historical records are revised whenever new data or errors of interpretation are uncovered (ask the guys at UAH about a career in it). Lintzen should accuse Spencer and Roy of the same thing. The U.S. Government just cancelled a NOAA project to do a detailed reconstruction of American weather conditions for the entire 20th century. That certainly would have revised the ddata sets, and by extension the global data sets. There is a current blog-buzz over apparent temperature adjustments to Icelandic data - without consulting the meteorologists in Reykjavik. Lintzen is no better than the blogs. The MET is coming out with a 'new and improved' HadCrut4. Ricky MIT might want to leave England before he smears that one. Lintzen, beyond whatever data-selection errors he may or may not have had, is playing the Janus when he points at inaccurate or insufficient data, and then cries 'fix' when the dataset is upgraded. He's jumped the shark on this one. -
dana1981 at 08:43 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
I don't keep old copies of the daily emails - it should be in the email on 26 or 27 February. -
funglestrumpet at 08:33 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
dana @ 43 It's no good trying to sweet talk me by calling me 'fungles'! It will cost you a couple of drinks at least. I accept what you say, but I still cannot find Monckton Part 3 in the daily listings, so where am I going wrong? -
mohyla103 at 08:30 AM on 8 March 2012It's not bad
JMurphy: The abstracts are all I had access to, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. The figures are already present in the abstracts though, so I would still consider my statement valid. I'm going to ignore the quotation you pasted in from the abstract because it does not mention percentages at all and it's the percentages that I said Barnett must have got wrong. Once again, the relevant sentence from the abstract is: "Reduction of water availability during the summer period, which contributes about 60% to the annual flow, may have severe implications on the water resources of the region..." Here we have an actual figure, 60%. The way I read this sentence is that there may be water flowing all year in this river, but the *water* from the summer period specifically represents 60% of the annual flow; i.e. the water from fall, winter and spring together makes up only 40% of the annual total. Do you agree with my analysis of this sentence? If not, please ignore the paragraphs below and clarify how I read this sentence wrong. Now if *all* the water flowing in the river in the summer period came from melting glaciers, this would mean that 60% of the annual flow does indeed come from glaciers, since the summer water accounts for 60% of the annual flow. However, I made the reasonable (wouldn't you say?) presumption that the summer flow does not only come from glacier melt, but also snow melt and rainfall. If you agree with my presumption, then you would agree only a fraction of the summer flow is from actual glacier melt, which means only a fraction of 60% of the annual flow is from glaciers. That's how I arrived at this "fraction" and I stand by my previous statement. How big is the fraction from glaciers? If 5/6 of summer runoff comes from glaciers (that seems pretty generous, but without further evidence I admit it's possible) then Barnett would still be OK using a figure of 50%, but any less and Barnett's figure wouldn't be accurate. Without searching the full text of the paper for a percentage for glacier melt specifically, we have no way of proving or disproving this. Considering his sloppy use of the other 2 sources, I don't have much confidence in his referencing of this source either. If you have access to the full text, by all means let me know if there is a figure for glacier melt specifically. If not, we'll just have to leave a question mark on this one. However, I'll take your lack of comment on the other 2 sources as agreement that Barnett's misrepresented the data in saying that "melting glaciers provide....50-60% of the flow" in these rivers. It is not melting glaciers alone, but the combination of melting glaciers and melting snowpack. -
Albatross at 08:24 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
Me thinks I should be emailing Dr. Hansen about this. In fact, I will. -
JP40 at 07:38 AM on 8 March 2012PMO Pest Control: Scientists
This sounds a lot like the George W. Bush administration. I know nothing about Canadian politics, but it would appear that they are are a few years behind the U.S., in political trends. -
Martin Lack at 07:09 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Professional misconduct complaint against Professor Richard S. Lindzen Sent by me to MIT today: Dear Sirs, I should appreciate some guidance about whether and how - as a non US citizen - I can make a formal complaint against Professor Richard S Lindzen for apparently repetitive hypocrisy, obfuscation and misdirection of several audiences, including the following: 1. At the Heartland Institute's 4th International Climate Change Conference in May 2010; 2. In testimony to US House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing in November 2010; and most recently 3. At a meeting in Committee Room 14 of the Palace of Westminster (at which I was present) on 22 February 2012. I have now sent Professor Lindzen 3 emails (on 23 and 25 February, and 5 March but, as yet I have had no explanation - let alone a satisfactory one - for the issues I have raised in my emails to him. Transcripts of my 3 emails have been published on my blog as follows: An open letter to Richard Lindzen (28 February 2012) - 1800 word email with questions from me. Prof. Lindzen – try this instead! (29 February 2012) - Many of my questions re-formulated as 17 statements via which I invited Professor Lindzen to explain his position. There is no cause for concern? You cannot be serious! (5 March 2012) - about 900 words - plus some very interesting comments from me and others. If nothing else, Professor Lindzen's repetitive divergence from - and ridicule of - the genuine scientific consensus regarding the nature, scale and urgency of the problem we face (i.e. anthropogenic climate disruption) and/or his invocation of conspiracy theory as a grounds for dismissing the validity and reliability of that consensus would appear to be in severe danger of damaging the international reputation of your highly-esteemed establishment. Therefore, if I do not hear from you within 7 days, I shall forward this email to Suzanne Goldenberg (US Environmental Correspondent for the Guardian newspaper) suggesting that she publish it forthwith because, in the continuing absence of a satisfactory explanation from him, I am inclined to believe that Professor Lindzen is part of an organised campaign to downplay, deny and/or dismiss anthropogenic climate change being orchestrated by right-wing, ideologically-prejudiced Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs) such as the Heartland Institute and the CATO Institute. I have reached this conclusion, in no small part, as a result of my reading of research done by Peter Jacques et al., the findings of which may be summarised as follows: In prefacing their research, Jacques et al. observed that: “Since environmentalism is unique among social movements in its heavy reliance on scientific evidence to support its claims… it is not surprising that CTTs would launch a direct assault on environmental science by promoting environmental scepticism… (2008: 353). Furthermore, based on their findings, they concluded that: “Environmental scepticism is an elite-driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement. Promoting scepticism is a key tactic of the anti-environmental counter-movement co-ordinated by CTTs…” (ibid: 364). Jacques has also highlighted the central aim of CTTs as being to cause confusion and doubt amongst the general public, in order to prevent the creation of a popular mandate for change (i.e. achieved by using a tactic developed by the tobacco industry of countering supposedly “junk” science with their “sound” science), which he refers to as the “science trap” (2009: 148). Based on the findings of the research published in 2008, Jacques therefore also concluded that environmental scepticism is a social counter-movement that uses CTTs to provide “political insulation for industry and ideology from public scrutiny”; and that this deliberate obfuscation stems from a realisation that “anti-environmentalism is an attitude that most citizens would consider a violation of the public interest” (2009: 169). However, Jacques does not blame the CTTs for the ecological crisis he feels we face, as they have merely exploited a dominant social paradigm; “because neoliberal globalism and its logic are protected from critique” (ibid: 119). I therefore trust that I may hear from someone regarding this in the very near future. Kind regards, Martin C. Lack. BSc (Geology), MSc (Hydrogeology), MA (Environmental Politics). Author of the Lack of Environment blog - 'On the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems….' References: Jacques, P. et al. (2008), ‘The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism’, Environmental Politics, 17(3), pp.349-385. Jacques, P. (2009), Environmental Skepticism: Ecology, Power and Public Life. Farnham: Ashgate. -
Martin Lack at 07:07 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Am I the only person on the planet that wants to know why the most apalling piece of data manipulation to make a point out of nothing – a mismatched graph of Keeling Curve v Temp (at 28m30s in the video)? And why won't Lindzen answer any of my questions: Is it because it was a blatant piece of hypocrisy that Lindzen left out because he knew third parties would spot; but which went un-noticed by an un-critical audience and left them all with the very strong impression that CO2 and temperature rise do not correlate? surely Lindzen should be censured by his fellow AGU members and/or MIT for such blatant hypocrisy, obfuscation of relevant data, and misdirection of his audience; on at least 3 occasions since May 2010? -
dana1981 at 07:03 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
fungles - all new posts are automatically included in the daily digest emails. Lindzen's Junk Science will be included in tomorrow's email. -
funglestrumpet at 07:00 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Can we please ensure that all latest posts are included in the daily 'Skeptical Science posts' email for the day of their release? I missed Monckton 3 recently because it was not notified via this Sks posts email, and judging by the lack of comments, I suspect that I was not the only one to miss it on the day of its release. (I only found it eventually by mistake!). I now see that there is another post: 'Lindzen's Junk Science' post appearing at the top of the latest posts list side bar. Please, a policy of all or none at all. Not this 'it should be here, but isn't' policy we now appear to have. -
Utahn at 06:49 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
@WheelsOC "Lindzen might not have even made the graph, just swallowed it uncritically." We'll see if he defends it tooth and nail a la Monckton (or rather, tries to change the topic), or steps up, won't we? -
Martin Lack at 06:43 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
#38 If you want to get the measure of the Rev Philip Foster, check out my review of his book, While the Earth Endures: Creation, Cosmology and Climate Change on Amazon, which I entitled Rev. Foster - For God's sake stick to theology!... (N.B. It is not ad hom - it is entirely factual criticism). -
CBDunkerson at 06:23 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Rob wrote: "What I always see happening is, they torture some data in the attempt to establish low sensitivity, then they just ignore every other implication that holds." What, you think the laws of physics have to be consistent? Maybe the albedo of ice and the saturated vapor pressure of water change over time. Ever think of that, huh? :] -
Paul from VA at 06:22 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
@10 Funglestrumpet. The last points are pretty close to unchanged, but broadly the number of events are higher than in the initial years. If the trend went up then went down, fitting a single trend would still appear upward.... There's an interesting cost graph in the docs linked by fpjohn@4, and it looks like the costs in recent years are highly variable, mostly due to major earthquakes. In fact the Tohoku earthquake was something like 80% of insurance paid out for all disasters in 2010. However, they didn't break down disasters by climatological vs. geological and instead did man-made vs. natural, so it's not easy to directly infer from the doc if climate-related disaster costs are also rising. -
Paul D at 06:13 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
Re: Russell@32 Noticed the Lindzen event advert you linked to includes Rev Phillip Foster. In fact I think he was sitting next to Monkton in the Lindzen talk. Here is his famous armchair video, attempting to do some science: [link] It's sad really.Moderator Response: [RH] Hot linked URL. -
Composer99 at 05:44 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's Junk Science
If Lindzen had a real & robust case to support his claims re: contemporary climate changes, he would have published it in the peer-reviewed lterature, received the gratitude of almost every other climate scientist (who would be relieved to find that their concerns were no longer supported) and on the way to Stockholm for a Nobel prize. Instead, he's stuck presenting junk science such as documented here (or in the London Illusions post) to political figures and, for lack of a better term, celebrities, with political, ideological or financial interests in preventing effective policy action to avert warming. -
funglestrumpet at 05:38 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
Is it possible that the trend graph is based on cost as opposed to frequency? As mentioned in the post, the geophysical events portion of the bar chart is reasonably level, considering that it must, by its nature, fluctuate. Yet the trend for the same component is shown as rising, which is either wrong, or the product of some other influence and the only thing that comes to my mind is cost inflation. -
tmac57 at 05:31 AM on 8 March 2012A Sunburnt Country
I wonder what the presumed rising premium costs passed on to the reinsurance buyers amounts to annually.I don't suppose that AGW 'skeptics' like to include those figures in their cost benefit analysis. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:21 AM on 8 March 2012Lindzen's London Illusions
What I never quite get from people like Lindzen who claim very low climate sensitivity is, how do they manage to reconcile this with even just glacial-interglacial cycles, much less any of up to 20+ other sensitivity estimates that suggest much higher figures? What I always see happening is, they torture some data in the attempt to establish low sensitivity, then they just ignore every other implication that holds.
Prev 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 Next
